In the range of heliocentric distances from 3.59 to 2.74 AU, daytime surface temperatures are overall comprisedin the range between 180 and 220 K...

Looking into how they measure surface temperatures, they make assumptions about the suns light and heat at the comets distance from the Sun, but do not actually measure that value, with a pyrheliometer for example. They use spectral IR measurements and Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, Wien's displacement law, and what appears to me to be some fancy footwork, to determine surface temperatures. I haven't studied this in detail, maybe someone here has a clearer understanding of the science involved?

In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

They can't get past the ice issue even when there is no evidence of ice:

“These spectacular changes are proceeding extremely rapidly, with the rims of the features expanding by a few tens of centimetres per hour. This highlights the complexity of the physical processes involved,” adds Olivier.

The sublimation of volatile species is clearly an important factor, as colour images of this region reveal the signature of exposed ice on some of the rims of the newly-formed surface features. The rapid rate of expansion is unexpected, however: models of sunlight-driven sublimation would predict erosion rates of just a few centimetres per hour, and thus the scientists believe that additional mechanisms are required to explain the observations.

A simple possibility is that the surface material is very weak, allowing for more rapid erosion, but it is also possible that the crystallisation of amorphous ice or the destabilisation of so-called ‘clathrates’ (a lattice of one kind of molecule containing other molecules) could liberate energy and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds."

It looks like there are bright spots near where this activity on the surface is taking place. I am not an expert by any means but when I saw the bright spots on Ceres I immediately thought that it must be something that the EU people have been talking about. Now with these images of the Imhotep region it is clear that the same process is going on. On the ESA blog they are pointing to areas where new features were seen to have formed and that is exactly where there are bright spots. Maybe we don't have a long enough period of observation on Ceres to determine if changes have occurred where the bright spots are but that is certainly the case on 67/P. This is really an amazing mission. I am grateful to the Thunderbolts community for enlightening me so that I can see these images with an open mind and not fall into the icy hype. The Ceres people keep insisting on salts but all that needs to be done is to connect these images of changes in the surface features on 67/P that have bright spots with the bright spots on Ceres. I am pretty confident that we are witnessing the holy grail of EU planetary science.

They can't get past the ice issue even when there is no evidence of ice:

“These spectacular changes are proceeding extremely rapidly, with the rims of the features expanding by a few tens of centimetres per hour. This highlights the complexity of the physical processes involved,” adds Olivier.

The sublimation of volatile species is clearly an important factor, as colour images of this region reveal the signature of exposed ice on some of the rims of the newly-formed surface features. The rapid rate of expansion is unexpected, however: models of sunlight-driven sublimation would predict erosion rates of just a few centimetres per hour, and thus the scientists believe that additional mechanisms are required to explain the observations.

A simple possibility is that the surface material is very weak, allowing for more rapid erosion, but it is also possible that the crystallisation of amorphous ice or the destabilisation of so-called ‘clathrates’ (a lattice of one kind of molecule containing other molecules) could liberate energy and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds."

I re-read this part as it is very reaching, vague, and almost without meaning:

"A simple possibility is that the surface material is very weak, allowing for more rapid erosion, but it is also possible that the crystallisation of amorphous ice or the destabilisation of so-called ‘clathrates’ (a lattice of one kind of molecule containing other molecules) could liberate energy and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds."

They propose the process occurs via "crystallisation of amorphous ice" via "destabilisation of ‘clathrates’ that "could liberate energy"---what does that mean? What is the causal agency for this vague idea?

"...and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds..."---what? Their explanation is a non-conclusion and explains nothing.

viscount aero wrote:I re-read this part as it is very reaching, vague, and almost without meaning:

"A simple possibility is that the surface material is very weak, allowing for more rapid erosion, but it is also possible that the crystallisation of amorphous ice or the destabilisation of so-called ‘clathrates’ (a lattice of one kind of molecule containing other molecules) could liberate energy and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds."

They propose the process occurs via "crystallisation of amorphous ice" via "destabilisation of ‘clathrates’ that "could liberate energy"---what does that mean? What is the causal agency for this vague idea?

"...and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds..."---what? Their explanation is a non-conclusion and explains nothing.

Evidence of amorphous ice in comets is found in the high levels of activity observed in long-period, Centaur, and Jupiter Family comets at heliocentric distances beyond ~6 AU.[27] These objects are too cold for the sublimation of water ice, which drives comet activity closer to the sun, to have much of an effect. Thermodynamic models show that the surface temperatures of those comets are near the amorphous/crystalline ice transition temperature of ~130 K, supporting this as a likely source of the activity.[28] The runaway crystallization of amorphous ice can produce the energy needed to power outbursts such as those observed for Centaur Comet 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1.

viscount aero wrote:I re-read this part as it is very reaching, vague, and almost without meaning:

"A simple possibility is that the surface material is very weak, allowing for more rapid erosion, but it is also possible that the crystallisation of amorphous ice or the destabilisation of so-called ‘clathrates’ (a lattice of one kind of molecule containing other molecules) could liberate energy and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds."

They propose the process occurs via "crystallisation of amorphous ice" via "destabilisation of ‘clathrates’ that "could liberate energy"---what does that mean? What is the causal agency for this vague idea?

"...and thus drive the expansion of the features at faster speeds..."---what? Their explanation is a non-conclusion and explains nothing.

Evidence of amorphous ice in comets is found in the high levels of activity observed in long-period, Centaur, and Jupiter Family comets at heliocentric distances beyond ~6 AU.[27] These objects are too cold for the sublimation of water ice, which drives comet activity closer to the sun, to have much of an effect. Thermodynamic models show that the surface temperatures of those comets are near the amorphous/crystalline ice transition temperature of ~130 K, supporting this as a likely source of the activity.[28] The runaway crystallization of amorphous ice can produce the energy needed to power outbursts such as those observed for Centaur Comet 29P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 1.

As it seems that tax-funded ESA isn't willing to publish wellfunded ideas on the Rosetta Blog and deliberately trying to "censor" alternative suggestions trying to solve their obvious dilemma the FS3 has thrown down the gauntlet to those ESA-mignons asking for further clarification (in German):

ESA-Blog author Claudia Mignone who states from herself being "sceptical" ...

...The pitfall here is that, while you handle the data, you need to make assumptions on some of the very same properties that you later want to constrain using those data.

Or do you really? Maybe you don't need to make as many assumptions as you think you do. You can go the "model-independent" way. Of course, you can hardly be fully model-independent, because any fitting procedure you will apply to your data means that you are technically choosing a model. So our approach was to adopt a non-physically motivated model, just a purely mathematical one, and use it to reconstruct one of the main functions that underlies all cosmological observations: the Expansion Rate – which basically recounts the expansion history of the Universe. After you've determined this function in a reasonably model-independent way, then you can go and compare it to your favourite (physically motivated) model and draw whatever conclusion you may like.

As a chronic skeptical, I clearly liked the idea...

...was notified and so we are eager looking for some possible statements of clarification.

Electrical transport of fine particulates is demonstrated here asvery-fine dust is lofted from the margins and depositedat surfaces of the current path (washer, nut and bolt),an electromagnetically attractive area..Artificial destabilization of material -via arc-driven vibration-facilitates a simulation reduced forces upon material thatlow gravity and low atmospheric pressures might present oncelestial bodies, like comet 67p-c/g,,so that the most electrically-transportable material can bemoved in a short period of observation.

This experiment might be applicable to the recent 67P-C/G mystery,in consideration of the possibility that electrical interactions -with thesurface- either follow a pathway or exert some forces whichthe dust yields to or is manipulated...

Another experiment also demonstrated electrical-transport of dust but it took the materialto a location at a distant spot outside of the circles and deposited it in a feature thatcan also be seen in the ESA images mentioned above. The interaction here wasbetween two surface areas of significantly different electrical potential,bridged without contact by a disturbing electrical field above the surface. Look for the wedge-shaped feature in the ESA images,, adjacent to the twodeveloping circular spots and between a surface covered less by dust...

So two experiments -which put active electrical forces at a specific point ona dust covered surface, applying only the involvement of dark-mode forces, (either in tendril formor in symmetrical coronal form)- could shed some light on these mysterious comet features..

In the first experiment i did have an arc-driven vibration acting upon the surface and its covering,but that arc was isolated from the demonstration surface and the vibration probably offset theforces present here on earth,, which wouldn't apply to the comet's material.

So here we have receding margins around a current-path,,, kind of amazing since all i had inmind was attemting to find out if an arc can cause a membrane to vibrate and i had no examplesof a setup to reference.. This was inpiration,,, all the way... TYLJ,,,,, d..z

...

Last edited by dahlenaz on Mon Sep 21, 2015 1:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

D_Archer wrote:Anybody want to explain how the 'dust' action is electrical in nature?

Regards,Daniel

ps. I would do it myself but i like to hear someone else explain it pss. As EU pointed out on comet Tempel I where an active rim was seen eroding the surface. see img

Well Myself, I would agree with FS3 that a double layer is stripping the comet of electronegative elements, specifically oxygen. Which combines with hydrogen in the coma, and frees ions from the surface.

This next image -from a variation of the previous experiment- showselectric-wind-caused mirgation of material from margins. Here i brought thearc-discharge probe above the surface while the lowere arc was still active.

You will see in the video (dahlenaz07 on youtube) that re-deposition of materialto nearby areas occurrs rather fast but that is less important than migration of marginsby invisible dark-mode electrical exchange.

The white surface was not a conductor and this experiment was done at high humidity..